Judicial Insight
Back to feed
(case remains closed for the defendants)CivilCourt of AppealsAppeal

Bain v. Urban League of Rochester N.Y., Inc.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided
Oct 2, 2026
Docket
624 CA 25-00765
Judges
Not listed
Cited as2026 NY Slip Op 05646
Detailed analysis & 3-line summary

AI breakdown

Analyzed Oct 3, 2026

Where this case stands

  1. Supreme Court, Monroe County: granted for the defendants, closing the case.

  2. This decision · Appeal

    (case remains closed for the defendants)

TL;DR

  1. 1A woman appealed after her injury case was closed by the court.
  2. 2The court decided to keep the case closed, siding with the defendants.
  3. 3Enough evidence existed to justify dismissing the case, according to the court.

Key issues

  1. 1

    Should the case be reopened after being ?

    Holding · The court said no and kept the case closed because it believed the decision to dismiss was correct.

Why it matters

This affects the woman who sued and similar future cases by setting a precedent on when cases can be closed.

The AI breakdown is a reading aid, not legal advice. Always check the opinion for the exact wording.

If you were the judge?

Injury case dismissed! Should it stay closed or not?

  1. 1A woman sued after getting hurt, blaming several groups.
  2. 2The defendant says they've shown enough proof to close the case.
  3. 3The woman appeals, arguing the case shouldn't have been dismissed.

Should the injury case stay closed or be reopened?

Parties

  • Appellant

    Bain

  • Appellee

    Urban League of Rochester N.Y., Inc.

Roles are inferred from the case caption.

Opinion of the court
Bain v Urban League of Rochester N.Y., Inc. 2026 NY Slip Op 05646 October 2, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. ELEANOR BAIN, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v URBAN LEAGUE OF ROCHESTER NEW YORK, INC., URBAN LEAGUE OF ROCHESTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, MILLS PHASE II ASSOCIATES MM LLC, MILLS AND MICHELSEN LLC AND M & M HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. ---------------------------------------------------- URBAN LEAGUE OF ROCHESTER NEW YORK, INC., ET AL., THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS, VIP MAINTENANCE INCORPORATED, DOING BUSINESS AS COLLEGE BOUND SEALERS, THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on October 2, 2026 624 CA 25-00765 Present: Curran, J.P., Montour, Ogden, Delconte, And Skinner, JJ. BROWN HUTCHINSON LLP, ROCHESTER (KIMBERLY J. CAMPBELL OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. RICOTTA, MATTREY, CALLOCCHIA, MARKEL & CASSERT, BUFFALO (ALLISON BOZINSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFFS. RUPP PFALZGRAF LLC, ROCHESTER (KEVIN J. FEDERATION OF COUNSEL), FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Joseph D. Waldorf, J.), entered April 11, 2025, in a personal injury action. The judgment granted the motions for summary judgment of defendants and third-party defendant. [*1] It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed insofar as it concerns third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment (see CPLR 5511), and the judgment is affirmed without costs. Entered: October 2, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn Clerk of the Court
View on CourtListener